University of South Dakota Research Park Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462693612
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sioux Falls, SD, USA
Phone
6052758010
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,373,226
Expenses
$306,031
Assets
$22,733,061
Liabilities
$1,605,436

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES ABBOTT (INTERIM PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHEILA GESTRING (CHAIR): $453,719 total reported compensation
  • NATHAN LUKKES (DIRECTOR): $325,795 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To foster economic development by:- growing university research capacity, resources, and talent- connecting these core university activities with private sector resources and companies- fostering economic and workforce development through supporting commercialization and entrepreneurship programming- facilitating the creation of the physical infrastructure necessary to support creation and attraction of research and innovation-based business

What it reported doing in 2024

Final design and construction management of building 1 executed in 2024. Funds received from the state of South Dakota through hb 1210, $15,000,000, must be spent first. In 2024, $11,249,906.36 was spent by the usd discovery district and reimbursed through the funds received from the state of South Dakota. Estimated completion of building is january 2025.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 4.9%; rating input score 5
  • Program expense ratio: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 97%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 74.28; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.6% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 4.9% of revenue deployed · 86.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $266K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $454K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $11.1M reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 5/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.